It’s been several years since this subject was raised, and I recently found a new candidate:
N&W W6 Class 0-8-0T
The available Google images are small, so a description.
Originally W and W1 class 2-8-0 locos (built 1899-1901) with 56 inch drivers, modified into 0-8-0T class W5, then re-classified W6 after some improvements in the mid-1940s. They had half a saddle tank (over the rear drivers) and half a coal bunker (fireman’s side, to leave the engineer’s sight line clear.) The front frame was not shortened, so the pilot beam stuck ‘way out there’ to clear pilot wheels that weren’t present. With a couple of courses of skinny boiler and a long smokebox in front of the saddle tank they just looked ungainly, unbalanced and ugly.
N&W must have liked them. They survived (as shop switchers) until the end of steam operation.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with fairly decent-looking steam)
I hadn’t noticed the ‘goatee’ headlight position in the tiny photos I was looking at.
The really early locos suffered from the lack of knowledge of a very immature science. Notice the total absence of counterweights on B&O “John Hancock.” And that vertical boiler isn’t much bigger than my household water heater.
As for the ‘inverted bathtub’ streamlining, not only ugh but double ugh! I may be biased, but streamlining should admit that there’s a steam locomotive underneath. Sort of like the difference between a knit dress and a burqa.
Ugliness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Nonetheless I would have to think many beholders would nominate the various Delaware & Hudson high pressure locomotives, which looked like they had been attacked by a mob of crazed sheet metal workers. This is just one of the bunch:
No matter what is said, somebody’s toes will be stepped on.
Lackawanna put fake wings on some locos that had been pretty attractive before that “beauty” treatment.
Several candidates among 2-8-0’s on the D&H. Leonore F. Loree made some engines whose unattractiveness was easily equal to their efficiency and power. Dave Nelson is reading my mind.
Erie’s H-6 Camelback 2-8-0’s were pretty attractive as built; but they became real monsters when the road rebuilt them as rear-cab engines.
I could go on, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Ugly is subjective, I know a guy that thinks all Wooten firebox engines are gross, another hates camelbacks, another thinks anything with a Belpaire firebox sucks and one guy doesn’t like front mounted airpumps. Some hate anything with color like the Daylights, Southern Ry passenger steamers, T&P. Then there’s the guys who are turned off by any sort of streamlining. Who knows…and really…who cares?
I personally love lots of plumbing like C&O, GN and some others and dislike inside bearing trailing trucks or that “Alco look” of the UP Pig Boy or Challenger. I’m not a USRA engine fan either. Just makes my tastes different from a lot of other guys.
My favorites are WM Potomacs, Virginian PA 4-6-2 and BA 2-8-4, Norfolk Southern (original) F-1 2-8-4, N&W J-1 and J, N&W K-1, most Pennsy, B&O and C&O steam.
I know steam locomotives had horrible visibility to begin with, but could the engineer actually see anything relatively close to the tracks in front of him without sticking his head out the window. I would image there was a lot of praying about nothing being on the tracks in the way. Was there any regulations regarding forward visibility on rail equipment?
On the bright side, the excuse that “I didn’t see that” would be a perfectly valid in a wreck for the engineer.
If you think that’s bad, check out the PRR GG1 or N&Ws ‘Jawn Henry.’
Actually, there appears to be a micro-window below the running board, so down and forward visibility might not have been quite as poor as it seems.
In a number of weird and wonderful one-offs, crew comfort and operator visibility were treated like high-cost options.
The ultimate in no visibility were the Uintah 2-6-6-2Ts (aka ‘Mantua Logger.’) the bunker covered the entire back of the cab - NO visibility when running in reverse!
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with a modified Mantua that has excellent reverse visibility)
If you’re referring to the N&W’s one-of-a-kind experimental 4-8-0, I don’t think it’s ever been produced as a model, although the M-2 4-8-0 (from which it was rebuilt) has been produced as a brass import.
The N&W M-2a was not a one-of-a-kind locomotive. They converted 2 of the M-2’s into M-2a’s #1100 & #1112. They were NOT failures as eluded to and were apparently quite successful as an automatic switcher needing little attention. The engines were pretty complex and were scrapped because the N&W bought a batch of nearly new C&O 0-8-0s at a great price and it was just simpler to use them rather than continue experimentation. They then built 45 almost identical engines to the C&O fleet in their Roanoke Shops. The #244 was the last of them and the last steamer built in the USA for a US rairoad.
The M-2a has not been imported at this time although it was considered by an importer at one time.
OK, Roger. You’re right. Two of a kind. But I never said they were failures. N&W did a lot of experimenting, with very few abject failures. Some folks would say there were N&W engines that came up short in their looks, but the J’s and K-2a’s certainly made up for that![:D]
